Remember the "democratic revolution"? Seanad reform postponed!

Breanainn

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
2,899
In response to questioning by Willie O'Dea, the Taoiseach today admitted that no moves towards Seanad reform will occur before the Dáil is dissolved. Of course, the probable considerable number of defeated Coalition members can now be safely re-housed, despite the referenda of '79 and 2013, along with the Quinn-Zappone Plan offering ample scope for reform!

The government won’t be doing Seanad reform after all
 


Sister Mercedes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
20,461
THE TAOISEACH HAS said that plans to expand voting rights in Seanad elections to all third-level graduates in Ireland will not be implemented before the next election.
How does that even qualify as reform? It just opens the 6 university seats up to the graduates of all 3rd level colleges. It doesn't give them any extra seats. At the stroke of a pen, the Taoiseach gets to appoint twice as many senators as all university graduates combined.
 

Don Wan

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
1,467
How does that even qualify as reform? It just opens the 6 university seats up to the graduates of all 3rd level colleges. It doesn't give them any extra seats. At the stroke of a pen, the Taoiseach gets to appoint twice as many senators as all university graduates combined.
Time to reform the 'reforms'. It's called the Upper House after all.
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
16,526
I remember all the celebrations here from those saying they were establishment etc etc , talking about going out having a few drinks to celebrate as they 'stuck it' to the establishment.

Too stupid to realise that the plebs were just had again.

There was never going to be reform of that dysfunctional house , the only real reform would have been to abolish it , but the people bottled it when they had the chance.

Norris was probably right when the mask slipped a bit the day after the vote when he said that by and large a lot of the Irish like the idea of having an upper-house of people they can look up to.
 

Breanainn

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
2,899
Not to mention that Quinn-Zappone could have passed both houses long before now.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,666
I regret voting to retain it. In my innocence, I assumed the government wouldn't be so petty as to ignore the obvious support for reform.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,505
In response to questioning by Willie O'Dea, the Taoiseach today admitted that no moves towards Seanad reform will occur before the Dáil is dissolved. Of course, the probable considerable number of defeated Coalition members can now be safely re-housed, despite the referenda of '79 and 2013, along with the Quinn-Zappone Plan offering ample scope for reform!

The government won’t be doing Seanad reform after all
Great news. All the reform plans were terrible and would have at either created a whole host of problems or left a Seanad that was as pointless as it is now.

It's a pity the people didn't agree to abolish it, but then I guess that was their choice to make.
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
16,526
I regret voting to retain it. In my innocence, I assumed the government wouldn't be so petty as to ignore the obvious support for reform.
But none of the political parties have every shown any interest in reform of the Seanad , it was never going to happen , it is astounding that people fell for the feigned interest all of them (in the Seanad) showed in the weeks leading up to the vote , having never expressed an interest every before that in reform , and now of course little interest in reform after the vote either.
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,930
I regret voting to retain it. In my innocence, I assumed the government wouldn't be so petty as to ignore the obvious support for reform.
On the other hand, if we had voted to abolish it, governments would be saying "you've had your reform" for the next three decades. Probably still better the way it worked out.
 

Ren84

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
49,046
I regret voting to retain it. In my innocence, I assumed the government wouldn't be so petty as to ignore the obvious support for reform.
In fairness to the govt they wanted it gone, it was up to the opposition to come up with credible alternatives to its abolition but they failed dismally to come up with anything remotely coherent and workable. When the govt have actual reforms proposals to work with THEN we might see some movement.

I voted to abolish the super quango BTW and even now it pains me to think that the upper house will continue on in its present state for decades to come. Take a bow those who voted to retain it.

On the other hand, if we had voted to abolish it, governments would be saying "you've had your reform" for the next three decades. Probably still better the way it worked out.
How?
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
33,861
This is ridiculous, and shows a complete lack of regard for the electorate.

There are 5 panels; Administrative, Agri, Cultural and Educational, Industrial and commercial, and Labour. Designate 12 seats for each.

Allow the Taoiseach one candidate nomination for each, the Universities collectively nominate one candidate for each, the nominating institutions one candidate nomination for each and the rest of the candidates proposed by whatever means is available, including one by which a candidate can be nominated by popular petition or some other means outside local or national government. None of them should be party affiliated.

Then hold an unrestricted ballot, of all registered voters, to vote for who should get the seats on each panel.

It should be for a fixed term, it should be part-time and payment should be ex-gratia, and should garner no pension entitlements.
 

Josip Broz

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
720
I remember all the celebrations here from those saying they were establishment etc etc , talking about going out having a few drinks to celebrate as they 'stuck it' to the establishment.

Too stupid to realise that the plebs were just had again.

There was never going to be reform of that dysfunctional house , the only real reform would have been to abolish it , but the people bottled it when they had the chance.

Norris was probably right when the mask slipped a bit the day after the vote when he said that by and large a lot of the Irish like the idea of having an upper-house of people they can look up to.
We had one opportunity, one golden chance, to get rid of this miserable cesspool of mediocrity and entitlement and we blew it!

I reserve a special level of absolute loathing for those who argued that we must keep it and they will reform it. These are the 'we know best' fools whose gullibility ensures that nothing ever improves around here.
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
16,526
On the other hand, if we had voted to abolish it, governments would be saying "you've had your reform" for the next three decades. Probably still better the way it worked out.
How is it better?

It is totally useless talking shop , and a very expensive one at that and we are now stuck paying for it forever.

It is only better for wannabe and have been TD's who use it to build their profile or their pensions.

But that's democracy , the people got what they voted for.

I don't like it but have to accept it.
 

Ren84

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
49,046
This is ridiculous, and shows a complete lack of regard for the electorate.

There are 5 panels; Administrative, Agri, Cultural and Educational, Industrial and commercial, and Labour. Designate 12 seats for each.

Allow the Taoiseach one candidate nomination for each, the Universities collectively nominate one candidate for each, the nominating institutions one candidate nomination for each and the rest of the candidates proposed by whatever means is available, including one by which a candidate can be nominated by popular petition or some other means outside local or national government. None of them should be party affiliated.

Then hold an unrestricted ballot, of all registered voters, to vote for who should get the seats on each panel.

It should be for a fixed term, it should be part-time and payment should be ex-gratia, and should garner no pension entitlements.
Or better still just have one Senator appointed per county by each local authority where they serve at the pleasure of local councils and represent their views, similar to the German upper house. Bring local government into the decision making process and make Ireland a truly representative democracy. We have a directly elected lower house where most powers reside, no need to be creating another directly elected chamber.

Oh, and fixed terms parliaments, term limits and appointment of government ministers from outside the Dáil as well.
 

GJG

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
3,111
Website
blog.hereshow.ie
We had one opportunity, one golden chance, to get rid of this miserable cesspool of mediocrity and entitlement and we blew it!

I reserve a special level of absolute loathing for those who argued that we must keep it and they will reform it. These are the 'we know best' fools whose gullibility ensures that nothing ever improves around here.
Bullseye.

I couldn't then, and can't now, believe that anyone was dumb enough to imagine that they would get a second crack at abolishing that outrage that is Seanad Éireann. It was blindingly obvious that there would be no reform, not least because so many of the promised reforms were utterly contradictory. As I said:

On one point you are correct, the cost is trivial. But even if the Seanad was free, abolishing it would still be the right thing to do.

You, and everyone else waving their hands and saying they want 'reform' will have no credibility until you say what reform. You should have some clue about the thrust of the reform you support.

The proposals currently being floated are such nonsense as to be, at best, meaningless. It should be 'more democratic' but also a 'voice for minorities'? Those two options are polar opposites, as are making it 'more than just a talking shop' but 'not having the power to challenge the Dáil'.

You might not be expected to give precise details about the mechanics of a reformed Seanad, but you must have some basic notion as to what it is meant to achieve. The fact that pro-Seanad speakers don't even seem to notice the fundamental contradictions in what they are proposing exposes just how shallow is their commitment to reform.

They don't address these contradictions because they know full well that, win or lose, these reforms will never happen. If abolition was not on the cards, they would be showing up to collect their salary, snoozing to lunchtime and then off on a junket to work up the exes, and we wouldn't hear a peep from them.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,666
There are 5 panels; Administrative, Agri, Cultural and Educational, Industrial and commercial, and Labour. Designate 12 seats for each.

Allow the Taoiseach one candidate nomination for each, the Universities collectively nominate one candidate for each, the nominating institutions one candidate nomination for each and the rest of the candidates proposed by whatever means is available, including one by which a candidate can be nominated by popular petition or some other means outside local or national government. None of them should be party affiliated.
What would be the argument for having those panels in particular, and for allowing universities to nominate candidates?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,666
I couldn't then, and can't now, believe that anyone was dumb enough to imagine that they would get a second crack at abolishing that outrage that is Seanad Éireann. It was blindingly obvious that there would be no reform, not least because so many of the promised reforms were utterly contradictory.
If you think like that, then the government still wins. If you assume that they won't listen to calls for reform, then your choice is between the status quo or abolition.

That incentivizes the government not to listen to calls for reform. It allows them to imply to the people "this is the only option you're getting", even if people would prefer a third option (i.e. reform).
 

Mrs. Crotta Cliach

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
7,252
Or better still just have one Senator appointed per county by each local authority where they serve at the pleasure of local councils and represent their views, similar to the German upper house. Bring local government into the decision making process and make Ireland a truly representative democracy. We have a directly elected lower house where most powers reside, no need to be creating another directly elected chamber.

Oh, and fixed terms parliaments, term limits and appointment of government ministers from outside the Dáil as well.
The government already controls the local CC's through the purse. The uS elects both houses. Senate - 2 per state elected by the people with no regard to size; the smallest state is equal to the largest state. And the House which is elected by the people per population numbers - a rep for every x number of citizens in the state. Still a lot of crooks but it works reasonably well.
 

turdsl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
26,002
Just another example of the lies, bluff and deceit that the Taoiseach serves up,
like saying he would end cronyism, just no credibility.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top